Why is it important to study Twitter and social media?

Many civil and political activists, researchers, and sociologists believe that studying social networks is futile and useless, because the users of these platforms do not represent Iranian society and only represent a part of Iranian society.
Others believe that everything that is seen on social networks is only a reflection of society and has no effect on society. However, I have a different view and believe that the study of social networks, including Twitter, is necessary for two reasons: first, social networks do not only have a reflective nature, and it is not that these networks do not have an impact on society.
The second reason is that we should not be deceived by numbers; it is true that only 3 to 5 percent of Iranian society uses Twitter, but a quarter of our students use Twitter. If we want to know what the future looks like, we need to look at this generation to see where its sources of information are and what environments it feeds on.  In addition to the media consumption of Generation Z, Twitter has an impact on the media consumption of our elites, especially our political elites. Many political activists are affected by the relationships within Twitter. Turning a blind eye to all of this and not seeing the impact of Twitter on Iranian society causes us to neglect the reality within society.

What impact has Twitter had on the culture of its users?
That's why I defined the impact of Twitter on political culture as my research project to study.
I have been a Twitter user for many years and spend many minutes and even hours on it every day, and to do this research, I have combined my observations with Twitter's big data analysis so that I can provide a comprehensive analysis of it beyond participatory observation.  This can also be seen in Twitter's big data analysis, which is presented in this book. That Twitter, through the creation of like-minded communities and a "selective ignorance" mechanism such as blocking, has fragmented the environment of its Persian-speaking users, not bipolar, but multipolar, or in other words, fragmented.
There are scattered groups in which there is a high level of internal trust in each group, but trust in members outside that group, tribe, cluster, cluster, and whatever other name we put on it, is low. I had observed how among the political poles, the members of each group considered the other pole as their enemy, and this kind of Twitter space has affected the relations between its political activists.
I even saw that Twitter was changing the discourse of political activists, as if to make it more hostile, which is not limited to Twitter. You can't talk to someone in the sharpest words in a public forum on social media and expect that this sharp language will not affect your relationships in the real world.

Many political activists on Twitter are concerned about democracy and consider themselves pro-democracy. As a result, the impact of this environment on the components of democratic culture became the subject of my research. It is not possible to expect a democratic political system unless the political elite and its people do not have a relationship with the democratic culture. It is not possible for a society where dialogue does not take place, political groups and forces look at each other with cynicism and suspicion, and the centrist forces are "suffocated", but the transition to democracy is expected. Because of this daily observation of Twitter, I felt that this environment was not helping the pro-democracy process in Iran.
The findings I presented in my book "The Twitterization of Politics" show that the Twitter space deepens inequality, exacerbates mistrust, and reduces tolerance. In this environment, due to the limitation of 280 characters in expressing an opinion, dialogue does not take place, and in order to express a point of view, one must write a short and even sharp content.

Several studies have shown that the sharper you write on Twitter, the more audience you will have and the better you will be seen. This prevents the formation of a tolerant dialogue on Twitter. Twitter has also had positive effects on society. In my opinion, Twitter has caused some facts to be revealed, officials to be more accountable, and to be more careful about their actions and behavior. But its negative effects should not be ignored. A significant part of our society is fascinated by these positive traits and is therefore inattentive to their negative effects. Influences that I have formulated in the form of the concept of "Twitterization of politics".
But what are the characteristics of the policy that has been Twittered?
The first feature is the prevalence of populist approaches, in a platform society, where more likes and views have become a source of income and attention as a new value, with populist approaches, it is possible to buy credibility and fame and even become rich. People take positions to welcome others in order to get more likes, and this is where demagogic behaviors are seen. "Twitter celebrities" move on the timeline trend, always swimming in the direction of the water, and trying to make tweets that get more likes.
Another feature that governs Twitter is the reinforcement of individual behaviors against collective actions. The tweets of an account are seen as much more important among political activists today than the positions of a political party, and this causes people to turn to Twitter activity instead of institutional and organizational activity, because they feel more effective in this way.

And the third characteristic is radicalism: radicalism in form and content. But the important point is that this radicalism has not remained on Twitter, but the culture that governs it has also been extended to the outside world, and now in official spaces, younger people are easily mocking and ridiculing the older generations who once respected and respected them.
Of course... Of course... Of course... We should note that social phenomena are not mono-causal and various factors affect their formation. It's not that Twitter is the only one that has caused these changes, but Twitter is certainly one of them.
What should be done?
Now, I think that since 2017, after about 7 years of continuous activism by political activists on Twitter, and after what we have gone through in recent years, the impact of Twitter has become clear to everyone. I spoke a little long. But please pay attention to this last part of my speech. Through Twitter, it is neither possible to build coalitions nor to reach consensus; Twitter not only does not help to create solidarity, but it also creates an atmosphere in which cynicism and suspicion are intensified and distances increase.
Anyone who has paid attention to the impact of Twitter in recent years must have realized that activity on Twitter cannot replace political activism and collective activism. From Twitter to fundamentalists and reformists, monarchists and republicans, left and right, etc. The water does not heat up. Instead, it will be hot for the project and for those who want to create division and division in order to rule us.

Because there the possibility of computational propaganda, which is an important concept that should be talked about more, prevents healthy activism. Because there is no dialogue and dozens of other reasons. But what I want to say here in conclusion is that Twitter has changed the atmosphere and political atmosphere in Iran.
Politics in Iran has become Twitterized, which means that in a word, it has become more radical, individual actions have taken precedence over collective actions, and populist approaches have been strengthened in it, meaning that everything we see on Twitter is seen in a more diluted proportion in society. Of course, other factors have also influenced the formation of this situation, and the changes in society should not be seen as a single cause. It is possible to change this atmosphere if we first correctly understand the mechanism that caused it.
Source/hammihan